Sure it was; although, technically, it was their money, as a couple. And so, to remove either name now, hers or his, removes the memory of half the couple's contribution and work for the community. Not cool.

AlwaysQuizzical's idea is a good one. If he's that concerned, make a new donation somewhere else with the new wife's name. That would be a classy thing to do.

Really depends on how they did their finances. Lots of couples keep money separate as part of their prenuptial agreement. I am not saying it is a classy move to remove deceased wife's name. Just saying removing his name would not be a polite move from the establishment after they took his money for it.

I would have to know why he is doing this before I can comment on it. If it just to tear down a memory he shared with his old wife and erase it to memorialize his new relationship, I am not for it. If it is something more emotional for eg. " She stopped believing in this organization towards the end, though I still believed in it. I have decided that having her name there bothers me and denigrates her name, so I am removing her name from it." I would be more okay with it. I don't know if I would generally bother with something like this if I had that much money but to each their own...

Sure it was; although, technically, it was their money, as a couple. And so, to remove either name now, hers or his, removes the memory of half the couple's contribution and work for the community. Not cool.

AlwaysQuizzical's idea is a good one. If he's that concerned, make a new donation somewhere else with the new wife's name. That would be a classy thing to do.

Really depends on how they did their finances. Lots of couples keep money separate as part of their prenuptial agreement. I am not saying it is a classy move to remove deceased wife's name. Just saying removing his name would not be a polite move from the establishment after they took his money for it.

You're right, it does depend. And we don't know how they did their finances, so the statement "It was not her money" may or may not be true. His statement that he himself gave the $10 million is his version. The son's statement is probably the closest we have to the deceased's version. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

But as I think further about it, I'm not sure that it matters how they did their finances. It seems to me that once general-you give a donation with more than one name attached, the origin of the money is irrelevant. His, hers, theirs, the dog's - the recipient thanks and honors whoever is listed in the correspondence accompanying the donation.

And, so, I'd say it's just as rude to remove her name at any time as it would be to remove his.

Of course, cynical-me figures it's just a matter of time before he gets his way. Too much future money at stake.

Something tells me it's the new wife's idea to put her name on the building. Because she seems really showy. Like from this part in the article "Little is known of Ms Clancy- including what region of the world she claims her title from."

Also, I don't understand the following. The man and his late wife were only married 15 years "Sanford Ziff, 86,...and his wife of 15 years, Dolores, were well-known..." She died less than a year ago. So he was 70 when he married her. In a photo of them, she looked at least 75, so she could not have been younger than 60 when she got married to him. Later in the article, it says "There has been no official comment from the former-couple's son" and later mentions sons of hers from previous relationships (which I mention to postulate that it's not like the "former-couple's son" was hers from a previous relationsip and then later adopted by Ziff, since the others weren't adopted by him). So, the son they had together, she could not have given birth to. He has to be adopted, and fairly young, in his teens, even if he had been adopted before they married. Why would the reporters be trying to get quotes and thoughts from a minor?

Something tells me it's the new wife's idea to put her name on the building. Because she seems really showy. Like from this part in the article "Little is known of Ms Clancy- including what region of the world she claims her title from."

Also, I don't understand the following. The man and his late wife were only married 15 years "Sanford Ziff, 86,...and his wife of 15 years, Dolores, were well-known..." She died less than a year ago. So he was 70 when he married her. In a photo of them, she looked at least 75, so she could not have been younger than 60 when she got married to him. Later in the article, it says "There has been no official comment from the former-couple's son" and later mentions sons of hers from previous relationships (which I mention to postulate that it's not like the "former-couple's son" was hers from a previous relationsip and then later adopted by Ziff, since the others weren't adopted by him). So, the son they had together, she could not have given birth to. He has to be adopted, and fairly young, in his teens, even if he had been adopted before they married. Why would the reporters be trying to get quotes and thoughts from a minor?

*scratches head*

Dunno - thinking the article got that wrong. From what I can tell, she had 4 sons - one from her first marriage (Hoppe), and three from her second marriage (Keater) (one of whom passed away before she did). She was 85 when she died, so they married when she was around 70.

[Dunno - thinking the article got that wrong. From what I can tell, she had 4 sons - one from her first marriage (Hoppe), and three from her second marriage (Keater) (one of whom passed away before she did). She was 85 when she died, so they married when she was around 70.

Yup. I did a little searching, and she had her kids well before she married him. (Sadly, 1 son has passed.)

It also looks like she had money before she married him, so it very well could have been at least some of her money that went to the opera house.

My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

It may not be so easy to change the name. He seems to think because he once gave a large gift they will do whatever he wants, but that large gift was in essence a purchase which gave him the right to name the building one time. If this organization allows the name change, they will lose donors because they won't trust that their donations and purchases of rights to naming and dedicating other items will be respected in the future.

Logged

"The test of good manners is to be patient with bad ones" - Solomon ibn Gabirol

I thought that you paid to name the building - once that's done it's done. The cost of changing a name is more than just a plaque: there's also maps, registries, legal papers to be updated etc. In extreme circumstances, you may request your personal name be removed (e.g. if the place you have sponsored changes policy to something you can't support) but you can't ask that someone else's name be removed.

If it bothers him that much he can always request that his name be removed, leaving the first building as a monument to his former wife, and sponsor another building for him and his current wife.